Pius XI did not condemn it all–you’ll find the same language in the Pius XI quotes in Humae Vitae as well. Read the link I provided in a previous post which shows that Pius XI and Pius XII, not to mention the Holy Office under Bl Pius IX, all specifically and expressly upheld NFP.Yes. It does look like NFP is condemned by Pope Pius XI. But the present popes have changed the teaching and NFP is now allowed by the Catholic Church, even though it may not have been allowed in the past.
Bobzills,Yes. It does look like NFP is condemned by Pope Pius XI. But the present popes have changed the teaching and NFP is now allowed by the Catholic Church, even though it may not have been allowed in the past.
But nevertheless, it is a form of birth control is it not? Birth is being controlled by the process of Natural Family Planning. Not that I am an expert, far from it, but this sounds to me like an excuses (or a veil so to speak) or ‘intellectual speak’ for the word or practice of ‘contraception’.Bobzills,
The very section in Casti Cannubii you quoted is what approves NFP:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either **of time **or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.”
So, a married couple can “use their right in the proper manner” even though because of the “time” “new life cannot be brought forth.” This is the essence of NFP.
Perhaps it could be in a sense “controlling birth” but then so could total abstinence then be called controlling birth. Under that definition of “birth control” we could properly say that Mary and Joseph practiced “birth control” and that certainly wouldn’t make a lot of sense. I think in most cases when people use the words “birth control” they are speaking of artificial contraception which, of course, has always been prohibited by the Church.But nevertheless, it is a form of birth control is it not? Birth is being controlled by the process of Natural Family Planning. Not that I am an expert, far from it, but this sounds to me like an excuses (or a veil so to speak) or ‘intellectual speak’ for the word or practice of ‘contraception’.
Please 'data venia’, but I have to disgree. Under that definition You should not in any way try to equate Mother Marys’ and St Josephs’ abstinence with Birth Control. Their most Holy abstinence was in no way, shape, or form related to Birth Control, It was their piousness and ultimate dedication and love to/for GOD that led to abstinence. So no we, you and I, cannot and shall not put this under the definition of Birth Control. To say that (of The Most Holy Mary ‘The Immaculate Conception’ and Saint Joseph), and I agree with you here that it would be *‘ad absurdum’ *and go further and say may border on the blaspheme. Simply it is not the same and hence your analogy shall not hold.Perhaps it could be in a sense “controlling birth” but then so could total abstinence then be called controlling birth. Under that definition of “birth control” we could properly say that Mary and Joseph practiced “birth control” and that certainly wouldn’t make a lot of sense. I think in most cases when people use the words “birth control” they are speaking of artificial contraception which, of course, has always been prohibited by the Church.
My point was that Casti Cannubii is one of the first documents to make reference to the fact that periodic abstinence (also NFP) is a moral practice.
This is one ot the things that bothers me about NFP. The other is the embryonic death that occurs. What bothers me is this:But nevertheless, it is a form of birth control is it not? Birth is being controlled by the process of Natural Family Planning. Not that I am an expert, far from it, but this sounds to me like an excuses (or a veil so to speak) or ‘intellectual speak’ for the word or practice of ‘contraception’.
So they are using artificial sources to stop conception, thus this is ‘artificial contraception’.This is one ot the things that bothers me about NFP. The other is the embryonic death that occurs. What bothers me is this:
- According to the statistics given out by the couple to couple league, NFP, when used correctly, fails only 1% of the time, whereas condoms fail more often. Wouldn’t that mean that you are more open to life if you use condoms? Also, in using NFP to avoid conception, you are using artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations and your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children.
Again Contraception.The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. Your goal then is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception.
Agreed.It then looks like you are placing the unitive primary and the procreative in abeyance. The Traditional teaching of the Church before Vatican II was that the procreative is primary and the unitive is secondary.
.
- The second thing that bothers me is the unintended outcome of embryonic death. In using NFP, embryos are conceived and because you have deliberately chosen to enjoy the marital embrace at a particular time when children are not likely to result, a large number of these embryos, which are human people will be unable to attach to the womb, and they will die. So although it was not your intention to kill anyone, the result of NFP is the death of a large number of human embryos
So, was Casti Cannubii and the Catholic Catechism incorrect on this moral issue??? They both clearly state that periodic abstinence is moral.So they are using artificial sources to stop conception, thus this is ‘artificial contraception’.
Again Contraception.
Agreed.
.
So you hold the position that this is unintentional Murder?
This unintended embryonic death is something which bothers me as I read more about NFP.So you hold the position that this is unintentional Murder?
NFP is against Birth/Conception, so it is contraception.So, was Casti Cannubii and the Catholic Catechism incorrect on this moral issue??? They both clearly state that periodic abstinence is moral.
Also Catholic Dogma teaches:**Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: **“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
St Augustine in Casti Connubii:Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
The Primary end must be suborinate:Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#55), Dec. 31, 1930
55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As** St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”( Genesis, XXXVIII, 8-10)**
NFP subordinates the primary endpoint of marriage to other things via intentionally endeavoring the avoidance of children, that is avoidance of the primary end, whilst having marital relations.Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
A couple of things:
- According to the statistics given out by the couple to couple league, NFP, when used correctly, fails only 1% of the time, whereas condoms fail more often. Wouldn’t that mean that you are more open to life if you use condoms? Also, in using NFP to avoid conception, you are using artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations and your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. Your goal then is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception. It then looks like you are placing the unitive primary and the procreative in abeyance. The Traditional teaching of the Church before Vatican II was that the procreative is primary and the unitive is secondary.
- The second thing that bothers me is the unintended outcome of embryonic death. In using NFP, embryos are conceived and because you have deliberately chosen to enjoy the marital embrace at a particular time when children are not likely to result, a large number of these embryos, which are human people will be unable to attach to the womb, and they will die. So although it was not your intention to kill anyone, the result of NFP is the death of a large number of human embryos. newscientist.com/article/dn9219.html
QUOTE]
3.Couples who use NFP are choosing to honor God’s gift and are choosing to treat a woman with respect. By using condoms or ABC couple’s are saying yeah we like the gift, but are choosing to block its possbility, and ultimately treat the woman as simply the play thing for the man.ABC is simply used so a couple can have their fun, not deal with consequences, not be open to the possbility of life, and more importantly allows them to be selfish. NFP requires sacrifice by both parties, it honors a woman by making sure she is not the plaything of a man, and while effective it keeps open the possiblity of life. There is a huge difference between the two. In one we are using God’s gifts to act responsibly, which include are ability to reason, and our self control. In the other we flood a woman’s body with chemicals to thwart God’s plan.
- If we’re going to use scientific terms lets please use them in the correct manner. Unfertilized eggs are not embryos. Embryos are fertilized eggs. Being that NFP’s goal is not make sure that eggs of the woman are not fertilized , it is not preventing embryos from attaching to the womb, and therefore could not be the result of hundreds of embryonic deaths. I don’t particular care whether you agree with NFP or not but please if you going to use science to justify a stance against make sure your science is correct.
- If by not having marital relations during a women’s fertile time she and her partner are killing off “embryos” as you have concluded from the article you read, then single chaste women are also murders according ot your logic. For they to do not have sex during their fertile time and therefore are murders. So since I’m a single women who’s never had sex and have been techinically able to have children since I was eleven, according to your reasoning I’ve been a murderer for 16 years. Surely you can see that the logic simply is not there. Please keep in mind woman are simply not baby making machines for a man’s pleasure. We too were created in the image of God, and we too are his children.
Historybrat
- While not in the post I quoted, many other post around that one seemed to indicate that every marital should result in pregnancy, otherwise why have it. I don’t believe that God intended to reduce women to simple birthing machines. Not ever act has to have pregnancy has its goal. In order to honor God was simply need to be open to the possiblity that sex could result in a life, not that every act has to.
- The saints and other documents quote to prove that NFP are wrong are taken out of context and the spirit they were intended. How do I know this? Because the popes have confirmed that NFP is an acceptable practice. I follow and obey the Pope. If it was wrong the Holy Spirit would have intervened long before now and saved us. Also NFP is not intended as population control. Many couples who use NFP have way more children than couples who do not. All of the saints would have been born since NFP has been practiced for ages. We’ve just gotten more technical about in the last 60 years.
Pius XI did not condemn it all–you’ll find the same language in the Pius XI quotes in Humae Vitae as well. Read the link I provided in a previous post which shows that Pius XI and Pius XII, not to mention the Holy Office under Bl Pius IX, all specifically and expressly upheld NFP.
Here it is again:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp
No they are not. Their ‘bishop’ was made bishop by someone from the Old Catholic Church.CMRI ordinations ARE “valid.”
They are NOT “licit,” because CMRI is not
in communion with Rome.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
The Primary end must be suborinate:NFP is against Birth/Conception, so it is contraception.
Castii Cannubii mentions repeatedly that the conjugal act is intrinsically connected to procreation.
Also Catholic Dogma teaches:
St Augustine in Casti Connubii:
A couple who has intercourse without using NFP could still have many embryonic deaths by having intercourse at the same time within the cycle.This post makes a lot of sense. NFP, when used to avoid conception, is just another method available to prevent children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. When your goal is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception, you are placing the unitive primary and the procreative in abeyance. The Traditional teaching of the Church before Vatican II was that the procreative is primary and the unitive is secondary.
Another thing that bothers me about NFP is the early embryonic death which is associated with its use. Here I am talking about a human life which is trying to attach itself to the womb, but becasue the couple has deliberately chosen to have sex during a certain time as determined by their use of artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations and their knowledge of the female reproductive cycle, it becomes nearly impossible for the embryo to do this, and 99% of the time he or she will die. Here we are reading about human embryos which are dying. This is according to an article by Luc Bovens, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, (vol 32, p 355).
“If you’re concerned about embryonic death,” Bovens says, “you’ve got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method.”
newscientist.com/article/dn9219.html
According to the article, the rhythm method of contraception increases the risk of early embryonic death.
nytimes.com/2006/06/13/he…gewanted=print
jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
Can the use of NFP be morally justifiable, if it is responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than other non-approved contraceptive techniques.
It is not just time it is:To MMLJ, please document why you believe the mention of “time” in Casti Cannubii is referring only to menopause. There is no reason to suppose this and we have only your statement that it is so. It seem to NOT be so as numerous Pope’s (Pius XII and on) have used this statement as a clear indication that taking advantage of own’s natural rhythms is morally permissible with serious reason.
My apologies I did not reply sooner.MMLJ,
You state “Catholic dogma says” when quoting a document on the same authority level as other documents which approve of NFP. Even if it was a higher authority, the intepretation given it by the Vatican of the time it was issued and the previous times also approves of NFP. Since no one has addressed it, but continues to paste the same passage and over and over again, I re post this for the third time (it has yet to be addressed by anyone):
Natural reasons of time could mean NFP. In fact it does because every Pope since Leo XIII has confirmed that it does. So, you have two choices: Either NFP is moral, or the Popes and the Church have erred on a teaching of Faith and Morals. So, either the Church is correct and you should adjust your beliefs or the Church is in error and we have no Pope.It is not just time it is:
We must consider the use of **‘natural reasons either of time or of certain defects’ ** in Casti Connubii:
This to me can only be menopause or infertility. What does it mean to you?
Also:
Questions:
If NFP is not a sin and is ‘Natural’ as it is termed; Can married couples use this method of NFP to have no children?
If so, if all women use NFP, then by this standard there will be no more children, is this correct?
What about the trial of Pope Formosus in “Synod of the Corpse” of 897?Natural reasons of time could mean NFP. In fact it does because every Pope since Leo XIII has confirmed that it does. So, you have two choices: Either NFP is moral, or the Popes and the Church have erred on a teaching of Faith and Morals. So, either the Church is correct and you should adjust your beliefs or the Church is in error and we have no Pope.
I apologize, but maybe I am not reading Casti Connubii correctly but does not this mean there are no grave reasons?:I agree Natural is a stupid name for periodic abstinence. No, a married couple could only use NFP for an entire marriage for a grave reason. All couples who use NFP must do so only for serious reasons. The comment that there would be no children does not follow.